Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Prof Martin Kretschmer (Director of CREATe) kicked things off with an update on CREATe's first funding period, with close to 60 projects delivering their final reports this summer. He also revealed that the event marked the launch of a new phase for CREATe, having received 'follow-on' funding from the UK Research Councils for a period of 18 months, focussing on four key areas with the aim of engaging with the UK creative economy to improve copyright practice and policy. These are (1) co-creation in the production chain: animations and guidance; (2) co-creation from cultural heritage: events and guidance; (3) co-creation in policy deliberation: peer production of evidence; and (4) the Copyright and Innovation Network. You can read more here.

Thereafter, three papers were presented together with
responses and panel discussions. First was a keynote by Prof Paul Belleflamme (Prof of
Economics at Aix-Marseille Université) titled ‘The Economics of Digital Goods.’
In his paper Belleflamme reviewed the theoretical apparatus that has been most
commonly used to analyse the information goods industries. He argued that these models are inappropriate, in light of the advent of streaming
technologies which challenges the main assumptions that underlie the
existing models. Belleflamme suggested that to update the models we need to
better understand consumer choices particularly in relation to streaming. He considered
that if streaming services organised themselves, not as re-sellers, but using a marketplace model, things might be different. Although he said during
the panel discussion: “I don’t know if it would be a good thing or not… and it
might not necessarily be possible for one single platform to make the decision
to change the business model.” The full paper is available here.

The panel discussion included a response by Prof
Morten Hviid (Director of the Centre for Competition Policy at the
University of East Anglia). Hviid added that
there has also been a change at the production level as well as the consumption
level. For example, he asked why record labels are still doing everything when
the artists could do much more themselves. He suggested that whilst established
artists have a lot of influence, less established artists are not well supported by
the system. [Although this Kat couldn’t help but wonder, perhaps a little naively
so, how did the established get to being established if the system is
really so broken?]

Katonomist Nicola

The second paper was from our own Kat Dr Nicola Searle, discussing her meta-analysis of CREATe Business Model research. The Katonomist presented her research which concludes that business models aren't changing. The discussion following her presentation suggested some disagreement, but as Nicola's post points out - there is very little agreement on business models in general!

Third, was a report by Dr Joost Poort (Associate
Professor of economics at the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University
of Amsterdam) titled ‘Reconstructing copyright’s economic rights in a time of
rapid technological change.’ Poort spoke on the history and development of
copyright, reminding us of the expansions of copyright through subject matter and rights. He also recapped the different perspectives of justifications for copyright be it
philosophical, economical or political. In view of this, Poort put forward the
case for copyright and welfare economics (a doctrine aimed at
maximising a broad concept of social welfare incorporating other relevant norms). As such, copyright would be aimed at, and limited to, optimally resolving the
market failure (that without intervention the creation and exploitation are
insufficiently excludable). This would involve a broad concept of exploitation, balanced
with the welfare costs of protection. This approach, he argued, could in theory
encompass the value attributed to freedom of speech, privacy, cultural
diversity and in practice amend outcomes of more narrow analysis. The effect
would be to allow a creator to exchange access to a work for something
which has direct, or indirect, commercial value. He pointed out that
copyright should not produce a new market failure by generating more (or less)
rights than one would have in an ordinary market. In relation to facilitating
access to unauthorised content, this would disturb such control and would therefore, likely have a negative effect on exploitation.

Poort’s paper forms part of an IViR project namely ‘Reconstructing rights: Rethinking copyright’s economic rights in a time of highly dynamic
technological and economic change.’ More information can be
found here.

Panellists responding to Poort’s paper included Dr SabineJacques (University of East Anglia) and Erin Simon (Product Counsel, Google).
Jacques thought Poort’s paper was interesting, although perhaps utopian, but agreed that the current rights are not aligned with today’s creative process
and exploitation of the work.

Erin Simon added that if the downstream uses of copyright
material are predicted then they could be factored into the price and thereby
reduce the value gap. She also commented [to this Kats delight as this was precisely the topic of her PhD thesis] that distinguishing between linking and embedding
is, from a technical perspective, quite futile. The difference between the
instructions to the browser in the form of the coding is minimal. For example, an embedding code might look like this:

On the other hand, from the viewer’s perspective, the
difference in the display on the browser is different, of course. However, when
the law is applied to online copyright infringement, it tends to be from the
technical perspective not the perspective of the user.

The concluding panel

Simon also commented that there are already technical
solutions to restrict embedding and linking online. And if publishers were
entitled to control the context of the use of their work, how far would that go?
Could it mean legally prohibiting direct-linking, ad-blocking or refusing cookies? Simon detailed a case study that highlighted how distinguishing between authorised and un-authorised
sources might not be so straight
forward. The case was that of Rebekah Johnson v Les Editions De L’avenir SA,
involving a bungee jumping video which appears on YouTube. Rebecca Johnson took
action against the un-authorised linking to the video, but did not request the video
itself be taken down from YouTube.

The event concluded with a panel discussion on the future
research agenda for the digital creative economy. The occasion also saw the
launch of CREATe’s Copyright and Innovation Network (CIN). The network aims to
be a catalyst for new industry-relevant research at the interface of law,
technology and social science to address questions such as; what is the future of copyright and
platform regulation? What are the big economic trends affecting creative
industries? What new business models are evolving in the digital copyright
industries? To get involved in the network, email CIN programme director,
Sukhpreet Singh at sukhpreet.singh@glasgow.ac.uk.

You can a collection of content from the day here and a storify of the tweets here.Image credits:Cat Clowder: ThieryKatonomist: @Sabine_JacquesFinal panel: @BosherHayleigh

4 comments:

The copyright system is a disaster. One only has to look at Disney to see how badly they have done by reason of the law of copyright.

Also what does "that without intervention the creation and exploitation are insufficiently excludable" mean? Somebody seems to be suffering from economania (a propensity to describe simple propositions in the most opaque of ways - I am allowed to say this, I am an economist). Why not say that "without a way of enabling people to profit from creating works by means of a law of copyright then those works which they would create are not created. There are no sufficient reasons for this."

Speaking about Prof Morten Hviid's point, I see the traditional record companies as being a lot like traditional publishing companies and even traditional legal publishers: they provide a lot of help that the artist or author find difficult to do themselves. technical help in audio production, editing help in publishing.

I notice some more modern publishers are concentrating on that, and outsourcing or mechanizing producing physical records and books

"Without intervention the creation and exploitation are insufficiently excludable" is fairly standard way of saying that copyright represents an intervention in the market to create excludability. Plus the whole incentives-to-innovate theory etc. Ashley - I'm not sure your interpretation is saying the same thing.

Nicola, that is sort of my point. If I, an economist and IP lawyer of about 25 years of doing a bit of copyright here and there, don't understand what is being said then how can anybody else? The IPKat's readers come from a wide range of backgrounds and are not all economists or copyright lawyers with long experience. I am not sure that I accept that the language is standard for readers of the IPKat's website and I have certainly never heard it used in all of the economic literature on the subject I have read; I do not doubt you, it is just that that means of expression has never come my way. Couldn't somebody have interpreted? You can (and have done) when you write economic articles, so I know that it is possible and that the will is there. It is helpful. This is a plea for clearer prose.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!